Communicated on 11 March 2019<\/p>\n
FIRST SECTION<\/p>\n
Application no. 48498\/17
\nJerzy DARMOCHWA\u0141
\nagainst Poland
\nlodged on 29 June 2017<\/p>\n
STATEMENT OF FACTS<\/p>\n
The applicant, Mr Jerzy Darmochwa\u0142, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and is detained in Racib\u00f3rz Prison. He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Letkiewicz, a lawyer practising in Tarnowskie G\u00f3ry.<\/p>\n
A. The circumstances of the case<\/p>\n
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n
The applicant has been serving a prison sentence in Racib\u00f3rz Prison since 19 September 2012. He has been detained for the largest part of that time in cell no. 306.<\/p>\n
On 24 June 2013 he lodged a civil claim against that prison, claiming 150,000 Polish zlotys (approximately 37,500 euros (EUR)) in compensation for overcrowding and inadequate sanitary conditions, including a lack of proper separation of the toilet annex in the cell, the low quality of the food and inadequate medical care.<\/p>\n
On 30 June 2015 the Katowice Regional Court (S\u0105d Okr\u0119gowy) dismissed his claim. The court established that the toilet annex was separated from the rest of the cell by a partition of 120 cm in height and that entrance to it was covered by an oilcloth. The court found that such separation was enough to guarantee privacy.<\/p>\n
The applicant appealed. On 22 December 2015 the Katowice Court of Appeal (S\u0105d Apelacyjny) dismissed his appeal.<\/p>\n
On 23 November 2016 the Supreme Court (S\u0105d Najwy\u017cszy) refused to entertain the applicant\u2019s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n
B. Relevant domestic law and practice<\/p>\n
A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice governing conditions of detention in Poland and domestic remedies available to detainees alleging inadequate conditions are set out in the Court\u2019s pilot judgments in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885\/04, \u00a7\u00a7 75\u201185, 22 October 2009) and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland (no. 17599\/05, \u00a7\u00a7 45\u201188, 22 October 2009). More recent developments are described in the Court\u2019s decision in the case of \u0141atak v. Poland (no. 52070\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 25-54, 12 October 2010).<\/p>\n
The issue of the separation of toilet annexes is described in the case of Szafra\u0144ski v. Poland (no. 17249\/12, \u00a7\u00a7 37-41, 15 December 2015).<\/p>\n
COMPLAINT<\/p>\n
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention of the lack of adequate separation to protect his privacy in the toilet annex in his cell.<\/p>\n
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES<\/p>\n
Has there been a lack of respect for the applicant\u2019s private life, within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention?<\/p>\n
Reference is made to the manner in which cell no. 306 of Racib\u00f3rz Prison, where the applicant has been detained since 19 September 2012, is fitted with a toilet annex and to the alleged resulting lack of privacy.<\/p>\n
The parties are asked to refer to the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of Szafra\u0144ski v. Poland (no. 17249\/12, \u00a7\u00a7 37-41, 15 December 2015).<\/p>\n